On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> You could also argue for "log a warning, continue until we can open for Hot
>> standby, then pause".
>
> I don't like that one much.
>
>> I can write the patch once we know what we want. All of those options sound
>> reasonable to me. This is such a corner-case that it doesn't make sense to
>> make it user-configurable, though.
>
> I agree. Since pause_at_recovery_target is ignored when
> hot_standby=off, I think it would be consistent to treat the case
> where hot_standby=on but can't actually be initiated the same way -
> just ignore the pause request and enter normal running.
When hot_standby = on and the recovery target is ahead of the consistent point,
the server doesn't enter normal running since FATAL error happens. So I think
that it's more consistent to prevent the server from entering normal
running also
when hot_standby = off.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
